[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Rewrite the snapshot authorization mecha
From: |
Benoît Canet |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Rewrite the snapshot authorization mechanism for block filters. |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:13:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
The Monday 03 Mar 2014 à 19:35:13 (+0100), Paolo Bonzini wrote :
> Il 03/03/2014 19:11, Benoît Canet ha scritto:
> >diff --git a/block/blkverify.c b/block/blkverify.c
> >index b98b08b..e1c3117 100644
> >--- a/block/blkverify.c
> >+++ b/block/blkverify.c
> >@@ -288,6 +288,20 @@ static BlockDriverAIOCB
> >*blkverify_aio_flush(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > return bdrv_aio_flush(s->test_file, cb, opaque);
> > }
> >
> >+static bool blkverify_recurse_is_first_non_filter(BlockDriverState *bs,
> >+ BlockDriverState
> >*candidate)
> >+{
> >+ BDRVBlkverifyState *s = bs->opaque;
> >+
> >+ bool perm = bdrv_recurse_is_first_non_filter(bs->file, candidate);
> >+
> >+ if (perm) {
> >+ return true;
> >+ }
> >+
> >+ return bdrv_recurse_is_first_non_filter(s->test_file, candidate);
>
> Thanks! Is this a silent bugfix? :)
>
> It is a behavior change from before, because BS_FILTER_PASS_DOWN
> only tested bs->file.
Hmm I did not even though it was a bug, I merely rewrote the code to adapt to
the new way of doing.
Should I mention the bugfix and repost ?
Best regards
Benoît
>
> Paolo